The New Yorker falls into the gutter

The New Yorker magazine is deservedly under fire for its tasteless, deliberately provocative and racist cover featuring Sen. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. The July 21 cover is supposedly a satirical depiction of all the Republican-fueled right-wing false rumours and innuendo currently poisoning the political atmosphere.

In my opinion, The New Yorker's mean-spirited cover echoes the sensationalist reporting of trashy tabloids, rather than of a seasoned, objective publication. Shame on The New Yorker for dragging political discourse into the gutter and helping spread rumours and lies to a gullible populace! Just imagine the negative backlash if the magazine had done a similar "satire" cover about John McCain and his wife Cindy, or the Clintons!

A Newsweek poll released Friday suggested 12 percent of those polled believe Obama was sworn in as a U.S. senator on a Koran, while 26 percent believed that he was raised as a Muslim. Neither allegation is true.

Bush continues efforts to wreak havoc on the environment

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush continues his quest to see how much damage he can do before leaving office. Today he lifted an executive ban on drilling for oil in most US coastal waters. He also urged Congress to ends its separate ban on drilling, to "reduce US dependence on oil imports." Isn't that rich, coming from the man who once said gasoline would be cheap, once we went to war in Iraq??!! On Friday, oil prices reached $147 a barrel.

Republican candidate John McCain touts offshore drilling for its "psychological" benefits to Americans worried about the high price of gas. But environmentalists say offshore drilling would take at least a decade to have any effect on oil supply and would worsen climate change.

Democratic leaders also oppose ending the drilling ban. Some 68 million acres already are under government lease and can be drilled. California Sen. Barbara Boxer said Bush's proposal "is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States." "The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy," Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee, said. Sign the petition here asking Congress to continue to oppose off-shore drilling.

Comments

[margie]

i have had this particular issue in my bag for a week now and have not opened it. i am assuming that like all New Yorker covers, there will be no comment in that issue from the magazine. i wonder if they will offer an explanation at a later date.

[Gemma]

As an outsider to American politics, what bothers me the most about the magazine cover is the gun behind the back touted by a melodramatic look of innocence on the face! That alone is simply nauseous! It implies war is masquerading female charms, luring leaders who should know better. I loathe the further implications of this image!

Satire bites, artistically, but this one is pure barbarism.

[My Castle in Spain]

Gosh...! I'm just reading an article, this wednesday morning in French paper "Libération" about this cover and immediately thought to check your blog.

Thanks for your post Tara and showing the cover.

I find it absolutely unacceptable and in fact really sad. This is not satirical, this is offensive.

[Carla]

Totally agree...that really was done in poor taste. I certainly wonder that no one at such a magazine thought to question this before it went to press.

[Liz]

sigh... that's all I've got for this nasty minded cover.... but I did want to say think you thank you for keeping all of us aware of the things going on here, I have stopped listening/reading/watching news as I was getting rather despondent about the whole country/world/insanity thing, so I come here now, and read things in palettable and listenable doses, thanks for all your reporting, seriously, thank you.

[studio wellspring]

all of this is so very disappointing & disheartening. i'm all for free speech too, but when a large publication makes such a huge insult to all of america {not just the obamas} with something like this, i think that is a pathetic misuse of free speech rights. shame on the new yorker.
and shame on the bush administration for continuing to pick-up the pace on its march to ruin of our great country.

[annieelf]

Very glad you posted about this, Tara. The New Yorker needs to shut up with the justifying and fess up to bad judgement.

[jeanie]

I simply couldn't believe it when I saw this cover. It is extremely offensive, totally inaccurate and maddening enough to me that I wrote the New Yorker telling them exactly what I think about it. What were they thinking?

[JP/deb]

Shame on the New Yorker and a big wag of the finger (which we've been doing for near 8 years now) to BushCo for its continuation of bad public policy decision-making.

[dana]

I was stunned when I saw it.....though the New Yorker has in the past used the shock value on their covers, many of which have made me laugh at the satirical poking fun, for some reason, this one crossed the line. It was pretty obvious it would receive some angry responses.

[Biraj]

Given how image ridden our culture is, and given what is at stake for America (and the world?). The New Yorker should have shown a modicum of restraint and compromised their perception of satire by not running a cover of such a caricature of the Obamas. This is not the time to lay (a) democracy at the altar of satire. Because there are too many people on whom satire *absolutely* lost, and for whom *only* the image endures.

[My Mélange]

Tara,

I was hoping you would do a post about this. I thought of you as soon as a saw it. It is disgusting-I couldn't believe my eyes!!!

Why this always becomes Obama's whining or a tit for tat between him and Hillary, I'll never be able to understand. It is about the New Yorker magazine being inappropriate. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obama has said nothing of the cover, as I would expect. He will continue to focus on the issues.

If this was about satire, is bombed. It didn't work as Satire! What it did do is prepetuate the misconceptions that people STILL have about him being a Muslim. So, maybe we are to take this opportunity again to tell people that OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!!!

I will also encourage your readers to read his book, *The Audacity of Hope*

xox

[Laura]

I was stunned and sickened by the cover. It's not satire. Satire would have shown the people who believe those lies about the Obamas that the illustration perpetuates---it would have pictured the vast caverns between their ears, the rifle racks on their pickups, or the glib Support the Troops ribbons on their monstrous SUVs.

[JO]

I'm sure it won't make any big difference to the people at the New Yorker...but I was ready to subscribe!! The decision had been made. I've reconsidered.

[Christine]

I would not include this cover in the category I am talking about. But alot of artists have commented on controversial things and they were part of the group that they were reflecting. That includes the Holocaust, Christianity, even Islam. Why should an image divide unless; if anything this image should unite people in protest. How about the depictions of Islam in cartoons? Where do you draw the line at censoring things?

[Gypsy Alex]

oh my! Ugh!

[Sharon]

I was totally appalled by this cover and sent them a letter to that effect. I understand that it is a caricature, but what were they thinking? The right wing will use this with great glee.

[Christine]

With all the horrible depictions of Hillary Clinton, I have no sympathy for Obama. We have free speech in this country and he needs to get over this. He can not control every thought, image or word that promotes or criticizes his campaign. And he can not control what American think about him no matter how great a speech he thinks he gives. The New Yorker and other magazines have put many a controversial image on covers and as an artist I think anyone who wants to control this is for censorship. Visual imagery are necessary, even the most offensive.

Tara responds:
The New Yorker has never before issued a controversial cover about a politician pre-election; their covers are available online and a journalist already went through them all. I support freedom of speech, but the New Yorker cover is inflammatory and serves no purpose in informing or educating the public. Instead, it misrepresents facts and reiterates racial stereotypes which have no place in present-day society. This issue has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton; it is about the future of our country. The cover serves only to try to divide us further by fanning flames of hate fueled by right-wing lies, rumours and innuendo - which is what the "satire" in the cover supposedly is based upon. I find it difficult to believe anyone who has considered the terrible, violent consequences of racism would excuse this cover under the guise of art. By that argument, the Nazi swastika and other internationally-recognised symbols of hate would be fair game for magazine cover satire. Where do you draw the line?

[Christina]

When I woke up this morning and my kids (ages 11 & 13) asked me to help explain this cover to them it saddened me. As their mother it is my job to protect my children, while at the same time teach them to keep an open mind and help them understand the ignorance of racism.

For me, being a black woman and seeing this cover was a blow to me in the stomach. I will not take time up on your blog and go into all that I felt uncomfortable with as I looked at this portrayal of this couple. I will say, that the hardest part of my conversation with my children was listening to their hurt over the stereotyping that went into this cover. Big afros and exaggerated lips. I understand that everyone may not see what I see and I truly respect that.

I can't understand why this cover would be acceptable to anyone. No matter race or religion. This cover went beyond politics.

I thank you so much for showing the cover on your blog and keeping us conscious. Ironically I also had put it on my blog this morning.

I apologize in advance if my comment has offended anyone.

Thank you- Tara : )

Peace-

[tangobaby]

Ugh. The internet ate my response.

Here we go again...

I was certainly surprised by this New Yorker cover. I have no idea who they might be trying to reach with this image. I have not read the article yet, but I cannot imagine what service this cover adds to the debate that is already so devisive.

What does not surprise me (sadly) is that The Shrub has the green light to run roughshod over this country until the very last minute of his unfortunate presidence. And just a couple of weeks ago he was lecturing us on our "addiction to oil." The fact that he did not even come close to facing impeachment is truly baffling.

(My apologies if this comment posts twice.)

[tangobaby]

The New Yorker certainly surprised me with this choice of cover art. I am not too sure who they are playing to, as I have not read the article.

What does not surprise me at all is that the Shrub will continue to get the green light to run roughshod over this country until the very last minute. Just a week or so ago, he was lecturing us on our addiction to oil. It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifically sad. The fact that this man escaped even the hint of impeachment truly baffles the mind.

[Michelle]

I am horrified.

[laura]

The only problem is that if the New Yorker had done something similar to say...ANYONE ELSE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET...there would be nothing said against The New Yorker. When you're in public life - you have to be thick skinned enough to take stuff like that and not be such a whiney baby as 'Bama seems to be.

~laura

Tara responds:
I don't think Obama is whining; he hasn't commented about the cover. As an American, I find the cover deeply offensive, as it shows racial stereotypes we are trying to move past and makes it more difficult for dialogue. And I can promise you that if the cover were about the McCains or the Clintons, there would be a huge outcry and backlash. In fact, even many conservatives are saying the cover is inappropriate.